Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

People like to categorize things...that's all part of cultural influence. We have all been taught since a very early age to categorize everything we come across. (just think of everything they teach you in school - there are three primary colors, ten base numbers, two nescessary ingrediants to every sentance, etc...) He's just proving that he hasn't learned to break free from such childhood instillments yet. Just give him some time. I'm sure he'll realize soon enough that we don't live in a black and white world, and as such we can't be too clear cut about much of anything.

--------------------

"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go..." T.S. Eliot

Post Extras:

Anonymous

Re: How many people do you literally love? [Re: World Spirit] #788888 - 07/31/02 06:39 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

"I think there is a transformation that goes on in one's conception of the term 'love.' And I think one changes from seeing it as a verb, to a state of being. And you move much more toward what would be called Christ-love, that is, the state of being where one 'is' love. One is like a light that emits, and one is a loving being....It is only when you begin to understand that if you and I are truly in love, if I go to the place in me that is love and you go to the place in you that is love, we are 'together' in Love. We start to understand that what love means is that we are sharing a common state together. That state exists in you and it exists in me. Now the enlightened being - what happens to him is that he changes the nature of his love object from a specific love to it all, finally. Tou would say that the enlightened being is totally in love with the universe, in the sense that everything in the universe turns him on to that place in himself where he is love and consciousness....That is...love and consciousness are the same thing. So the that as you come into a higher state of consciousness you come closer to being in love. That doesn't mean in interpersonal love. It means being - love."

But, I do differentiate between familial, romantic and the love of intimate friends (sans, sex). I don't do this to "catagorize" them, nor to keep them straight or something silly like that. I don't use the catagorys to determine the worth of the indivual I love. Certainly, no matter WHAT Freud says, I don't love my mother less than my lover, if both were caught in a fire and I had to choose, I would have to kill myself on the spot. I could never choose between them.

I don't want to hurt my lover's feelings nor disparage our relationship, but I don't need my lover to be my best friend, I have a best friend, I don't need my lover to fullfil that role. It may be that my lover and I share many, many things in common and most assuredly, we enjoy each other's company. The reality of any, fiercly intimate relationship is that it is very energetic, it requires commitment to engage in such a relationship; serious commitment.

As to my friends, I am probably unique in this manner, so what I say on the subject should not be mis-construed as a SHOULD type of path to follow. I love my friends without reservation. I trust them with my life. I would do whatever they asked of me without question, they love me and would never put me in a harmful situation; not on purpose. I have few friends, I know this and am not dismayed by it. I am a demanding person, first from myself, and then from those about me. My friends have EARNED my trust and with it my love.

My lover, on the other hand, has earned my trust as well. What is true for my friends, is true of the love I feel for my lover. However, the relationship between myself and my lover differs in our communication with each other, and in our physical relationship. I don't have sex with my friends. Sex, while certainly an excellent aerobic activity (if done properly), is not the primary difference between, the love one has for friends and the love one has for a partner, it is the communication between lovers in the ACT of making love that is the primary difference. The goals that you both share, together, and seperately. The life, with your partner, is one of growth, understanding, shared values and shared dreams; including the hell and hard work that goes with that relationship.

I don't find the statement "I want my husband/wife to be my best friend" a sound way to live. Why would you wish to limit the loving relationships of your spouse? Why would you insist on being all things at all times? Isn't this a bit much for one person to be? I don't discount that one should be friends with their spouse or lover, I don't think that it is possible, at least not in a healthy relationship. But, differentiating between ones relationships does NOT demean the other's. It doesn't put "them" in thier place. It, I think, enhances ALL of ones love relationships.

I think that, and I know squat about phsycology, with the initial romantic relationship, women, at least in these times, tend to demand a lot of attention from their mate, both to feel loved and to ensure that there is trust in the begining of the relationship; this, of course, doesn't necessarily apply to ONLY women. I understand what it is that they want, but communicating it in this manner only leads to confusion.

Is this clear at all? I read it twice before I posted it, and it still seems a little vague; even to me. I await all replys to the wonderful post from Enter. How one defines love and therefore, ones moral stance on it, defines one of the most important areas in a person's life. (my opinion, feel free to dismiss it)

"There are many different types of love. Here's a couple for inspiration's sake: Agape - Godly lovePhiladelphia - Brotherly LoveAhab - Family or sexual love"C.S. lewis on the four loves, enter? excellent book about love if you wonder what love is. may i correct you braa? ahab is family love, and eros is sexual love. the other two were right. i love love. love is all. so i guess you could say i love everybody to some extent. i won't tell you what i do or why i love them, that is kinda bragging...but let's say...if i see a perfect stranger in any type of pain, i am moved to tears and a desire to help. damn i've been burned alot. but i have to help the next person who comes along, because i don't know them, why should i hate them or treat them different because the last person burned me? my Christ loved everyone, and i try to imitate him. i don't always succeed, but i try. i do all i can, and it's enough, because at least i'm loving all that i can. and trying.peace.

Actually, before someone else steps in an makes this correction in an obnoxious way, I'll note that the term for brotherly love is 'philias,' while Philadelphia means 'city of brotherly love.' I think the Greek root 'delphi,' indicates 'place,' as in 'the Oracle at Delphi.'

I am not familiar with the word 'ahab,' (outside of Moby Dick, of course), but 'Eros,' which has come down to us today with a sexual connotation, via Freud, actually meant 'Heavenly Eros' to Plato, and indicates a 'yearning for the Other.' This can be towards a human other, or towards God. Eros constitutes the upward, path of ascension that I have posted; grounded in primordial human energy and climbing [climax] to its fullfillment in the other. I have a reproduction of the winged god Eros, in a bell jar, like the one Freud had in his office. I keep it on the table between the chairs in my consulting room. It indicates 'relatedness' in the highest degree.

The Catholic theologians developed a hybrid notion between our upward quest for God (the same impulse that translated into the tall, pointed spires of high Gothic period cathedrals); and God's freely, downward 'raining,' or 'radiating' love that He causes to 'fall' upon saint and sinner alike - agape. That hybrid is Caritas [the Caritas synthesis]. Sometimes Caritas is translated as 'charity,' but this is not quite accurate, it is more complex and reflects both the human and Divine love that mingled in Jesus the Christ. It is a dynamic relationship which cannot be separated out from one another, except by mental abstraction.

BTW, if you are interested in this kind of stuff, the classic work on love[s] in called 'Agape and Eros' by Anders Nygren.

--------------------γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Post Extras:

Anonymous

Re: How many people do you literally love? [Re: World Spirit] #789742 - 08/01/02 06:06 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Why just one? You seem like someone who must be very friendly in person.

I was using a very strict criterion when I answered the question. There are many people that I 'luv' but that is different than a selfless love. My love for my wife is deeper and less selfish than any love I have had for any other being. I love her because she exists and would give my life for her easily. It does not matter what shes does or how she acts. We have been together for 18 years and the depth of our relationship is beyond any other I have ever had.

At the risk of sounding crass, I'll voice a counter opinion from one who has been married for a decade and divorced, and in another marriage (not legally wed) for six years. My Lady is currently my best friend. Now, not to sound contradictory...my Best friend Paul, who has been my friend for 47 years, since we were 2, lives far away from Miami in Amherst, MA. I get to see him once a year if I'm fortunate. Meanwhile, Rose lives with me, shares my bed, buys my specific foods and supplements, helps clean the house, encourages me in my weaknesses, rubs my back and neck when I'm tense, reads high level books which she then discusses with me, or conversely, listens to my new discoveries. Rose does most of the cooking, she helps my visitors, clients [especially females coming in for closed-eyed hypnosis] and friends feel welcome. She follows me to the auto mechanic, drives me home and later drives me back. Sometimes she buys me books just because she saw one she knew I'd like. I do not have to go on as I've made my point. Conjunctio - the Union of Opposites - Alchemical Rex & Regina - Sun & Moon [Ha-tha Yoga] is the Spiritual Marriage that incorporates philias, eros and agape in a single love between two people. This love embodies the specialness of monogamous [sexual] eros, universal agape and the philial love of brother [sun] and sister [moon] to the greatest degree we can muster, with God's grace. When we embark on an entheogenic excursion, it is the Heavenly Eros of Plato upon which we climb the Ladder of Ascension in order to meet God's radiant Agape. It is not what I want, or expect, or demand - it is what is. On a day-to-day basis, my Lady [wife] is my best friend. It happens that we both want that to begin with, which means that we share core values - which is what makes us best friends.

We are monotheistic - our God is ONE, and consequently our love is one. My best friend Paul is my 'brother,' not by blood, but by the philial love of a lifetime. Rose is also my best [female] friend. I wouldn't sleep with anyone anymore who wasn't my best friend, and since I'm straight, Rose and I can do that. I would not kill myself in a crisis [I'm a crisis intervention specialist]; I would act logically and decisively (and so would Rose 'cause we're both the same INTP personality types according to the MBTI) - and would NOT act through the 'Feeling' function of the psyche, nor is it clearly the optimal thing to do in order to save lives. If one can't think that logically, there are procedures to learn.

The bottom line is that contrary to what you 'believe,' WE can 'demonstrate' a preeminently healthy relationship as spouses and best friends. This, I am neither defending against your position, or boasting about. It is an accurate and objective assessment that I make both personally and professionally as a licensed and board certified clinical mental health counselor. Peace.

You sound, neither crass nor irrational; I can only hope to one day meet a woman like that. If I should, then, the subject of WHO is my best friend would not be relevant. It would still be someone other than her. Your lover just happens to be considerate of you, obviously loves you a great deal and you return this love. To the point of defining ones relationship(s), one must, necassarily, define the differing loves one has. Consider your list of what your lover does for you:

"my Best friend Paul, who has been my friend for 47 years, since we were 2, lives far away from Miami in Amherst, MA. I get to see him once a year if I'm fortunate. Meanwhile, Rose lives with me, shares my bed, buys my specific foods and supplements, helps clean the house, encourages me in my weaknesses, rubs my back and neck when I'm tense, reads high level books which she then discusses with me, or conversely, listens to my new discoveries. Rose does most of the cooking, she helps my visitors, clients [especially females coming in for closed-eyed hypnosis] and friends feel welcome. She follows me to the auto mechanic, drives me home and later drives me back. Sometimes she buys me books just because she saw one she knew I'd like. I do not have to go on as I've made my point."

Does Paul do any of these things for you? Would he if he lived next door? I know that, when I am in an intimate relatioship, a neck rub is to be found when I get home and the reciprocation of such. I know, that one of us is going to do the shopping, if it is I then I would purchase foods that she liked. Of course we would share the same bed ( I am assumeing sex here also); I am quite sure that you and Paul shared a bed in your long friendship, hunting, fishing, school trip or such. But, you would NEVER qualify, "shares my bed" when refering to Paul as you do when refering to your lover. Hence, the difference in the relationships. If, considering your longstanding friendship with him, you and Paul were ever room mates, would he not also help with the house keeping? Your lover also has some contact with you in your daily work routine (?) Again, assuming here, surely you and Paul worked at the same place at some time in your younger lives? Did this change the relationship with Paul to one of a lover? (NO, I am not trying to be intentionaly rude, I would not do that, I am just makeing a leap of reasoning).

Now, if I am wrong, then so be it. As I said, I am NOT the one to listen to when one defines their friendship relationships; my friends are as close to me as any human can be, sans my lover. If you define your best friend in this way, ie. the nature of the day to day considerations they express, then your lover may very well ALSO be your best friend but she is MORE; the nature of your relationship goes beyond friendship.

I suppose that I was refering to a mis-understanding of what a "best friend" is, it seems, given a broader definition, that I have several. I just don't see the point in FIRST being best friends and then changeing the relationship to lovers. Why not skip the first one and be lovers. This would be inclusive, if you're lucky, and would also create a lasting relationship.

I don't love my mother less than my lover, if both were caught in a fire and I had to choose, I would have to kill myself on the spot. I could never choose between them.So instead of one person dead, there would be three. Good call.